Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Whenever I hear people talking about regulating businesses for either financial or ecological purposes, one thing is certain. Those who support increased regulations fail to take into account the fact that borders are more porous then ever. Allow me to explain.

If I happen to be a liberal politician and want to increase my populist outreach I will do one thing: Rail against the greed of corporations and call for their taxation. I would probably use inflammatory language and point out how their CEO makes 100x more than their lowest paid worker. Chances are I will ride a wave of populism into office. If enough politicians follow suit, especially during a time of an economic crisis, we will have enough legislators in office to pass a 10% increase in corporate taxes. This will make all the voters feel empowered, and increase my chances for reelection. And we all lived happily ever after.

You should have expected any story to begin with me being a liberal politician to be fictional. Here is how it would really go down:

After the tax gets enacted, the CEO of looks around and say to himself, (Yes the CEO of the evil company is a guy) "While I would love to continue to produce services in this nation/state/municipality, I have a responsibility to the evil shareholders who are only interested in money *gasp*, so I will move my factory/office/headquarters from this unfavorable tax environment." Due to a company leaving California, there is a sudden spike in unemployment, and the voters grab their torches and go to the door of the liberal politician to demand accountability. The voters break into his house and in a dramatic act of revenge, that would later be portrayed on the silverscreen, literally throw the bum out and install a wise business oriented conservative. And we all lived happily ever after.

While I definitely like this ending a lot more it is also far from the truth. Let's continue, shall we?

The conservative enters office with a cheery disposition and a can do attitude. He cuts taxes on businesses (Yes the conservative politician is also a guy, deal with it), to bring back lost jobs. The CEO has a little chat on the telephone with the conservative politician that goes something like this:

Politician: Hey, now that taxes are down, you want to leave China/Wyoming/Eureka and come back to the United States/California/San Francisco.

CEO: Well... how do I know that the tax rate won't go back up again?

Politician: As long as I am in office, I won't increase taxes on you.

CEO: And what if you lose your bid for reelection to a liberal?

Politician: (Fingers crossed) That will never happen... *wince*

CEO: Let's say I am stupid enough to take you at your word, moving is expensive, and besides the minimum wage is much cheaper here, is there anything you can offer me to entice me to move back?

The story then takes a turn for the worse and the conservative caves in to the demand of the now-unemployed voters and increases welfare spending, further increasing the tax burden on the now-scarce companies, causing them to leave the tax environment for fairer pastures. The previously deposed liberal is elected on a wave of populist anger, and the downward spiral continues.

And the moral of the story is: If you increase your rent, people will leave and probably never come back.

This theory can be applied to thousands upon thousands of political issues such as global warming (increasing emission standards for factories who then move to China), and unionization (workers unionizing against pay cuts which forces companies to move to China for ununionized labor). This wasn't such a big problem when moving costs were prohibitive, however now with cheap internet access across the world, such moves can be done long before the implementation of a crippling tax.

Whenever I hear people talking about regulating businesses for either financial or ecological purposes, one thing is certain. Those who support increased regulations fail to take into account the fact that borders are more porous then ever. Allow me to explain.

If I happen to be a liberal politician and want to increase my populist outreach I will do one thing: Rail against the greed of corporations and call for their taxation. I would probably use inflammatory language and point out how their CEO makes 100x more than their lowest paid worker. Chances are I will ride a wave of populism into office. If enough politicians follow suit, especially during a time of an economic crisis, we will have enough legislators in office to pass a 10% increase in corporate taxes. This will make all the voters feel empowered, and increase my chances for reelection. And we all lived happily ever after.

You should have expected any story to begin with me being a liberal politician to be fictional. Here is how it would really go down:

After the tax gets enacted, the CEO of looks around and say to himself, (Yes the CEO of the evil company is a guy) "While I would love to continue to produce services in this nation/state/municipality, I have a responsibility to the evil shareholders who are only interested in money *gasp*, so I will move my factory/office/headquarters from this unfavorable tax environment." Due to a company leaving California, there is a sudden spike in unemployment, and the voters grab their torches and go to the door of the liberal politician to demand accountability. The voters break into his house and in a dramatic act of revenge, that would later be portrayed on the silverscreen, literally throw the bum out and install a wise business oriented conservative. And we all lived happily ever after.

While I definitely like this ending a lot more it is also far from the truth. Let's continue, shall we?

The conservative enters office with a cheery disposition and a can do attitude. He cuts taxes on businesses (Yes the conservative politician is also a guy, deal with it), to bring back lost jobs. The CEO has a little chat on the telephone with the conservative politician that goes something like this:

Politician: Hey, now that taxes are down, you want to leave China/Wyoming/Eureka and come back to the United States/California/San Francisco.

CEO: Well... how do I know that the tax rate won't go back up again?

Politician: As long as I am in office, I won't increase taxes on you.

CEO: And what if you lose your bid for reelection to a liberal?

Politician: (Fingers crossed) That will never happen... *wince*

CEO: Let's say I am stupid enough to take you at your word, moving is expensive, and besides the minimum wage is much cheaper here, is there anything you can offer me to entice me to move back?

The story then takes a turn for the worse and the conservative caves in to the demand of the now-unemployed voters and increases welfare spending, further increasing the tax burden on the now-scarce companies, causing them to leave the tax environment for fairer pastures. The previously deposed liberal is elected on a wave of populist anger, and the downward spiral continues.

And the moral of the story is: If you increase your rent, people will leave and probably never come back.

This theory can be applied to thousands upon thousands of political issues such as global warming (increasing emission standards for factories who then move to China), and unionization (workers unionizing against pay cuts which forces companies to move to China for ununionized labor). This wasn't such a big problem when moving costs were prohibitive, however now with cheap internet access across the world, such moves can be done long before the implementation of a crippling tax.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Once again another post that won't make me very many friends but it is worth considering.

Professional wrestler turned Governor of Nebraska Jesse Ventura once stated that

"you have the far left at 15 percent, you have the far right at 15 percent, and there's 70 percent of us in the center."

While I cannot testify as to whether or not Jesse Ventura was a moderate, ( The only thing I know for sure, is that he was moderately insane) there is some credence to this statement. Being a moderate, or as some call it an independent, is in. What's more fashionable then to say "I am fed up with the way that government has been run as of this point by both parties and consider myself a moderate?"

The one thing that you hear most moderates complain from is that they are not represented in the media. That statement is more or less correct. You have your Olbermans and your Moores on the far left and your Hannitys and your Becks on the far right. The problem, as moderates see it, is that there is no representation for this huge middle. Moderates assume that with no alternative left, those who are right leaning centrists are forced towards Fox and those with even the slightest liberal tendency are forced to Msnbc.

This prognosis, while it makes every moderate as happy as a clam, fails to take into account one of the key problem with moderates in America. The problem is, on balance, moderates don't care. This is a question worth asking yourself if you consider yourself a moderate. Do you care about politics? Every government teacher I ever had talked about the true silent majority of centrism and yet fail to take into account this key point. You want proof? Ask any self-proclaimed moderate whether they voted in the midterm election. Chances are they will say no. The phrase "party faithful" wasn't created out of thin air, they are the group that volunteers, votes, and donates. Not to say that there are civic minded moderates, in fact a friend of mine is exactly that. These people however are the true minority of the silent majority. Why do politicians hold rallies? Why do they go on talk shows that the middle don't watch? Its because in reality while Americans are on a bell curve politically, the graph is bimodal when it comes to civic activity.

Side note:

Some people consider me to be righter than anyone when it comes to politics. While I am fiscally conservative near the point of economic anarchy, I consider myself a social moderate. Obviously I do not set my point of reference for moderacy to be the Bay Area, so all you nay-sayers out there take a minute and consider the following.

Liberals want to maintain abortion rights to all women on the federal level. Conservatives wish to illegalize abortion at the federal level. My belief is that abortion should be handled at the level of the state with the approval of the citizenry. The reason I am not farther left is because I believe abortion is unjustified killing. The reason I am not farther right is because I believe that states have the right to legislate murder, especially since murder is typically handled by the state anyways.

:Liberals want to grant the right of marriage to every gay couple. Conservatives want an amendment to the US constitution legislating marriage to be between a man and a woman. I on the other hand subscribe to the belief that this too should be decided on the state level with consent from the governed. Mind you I am for civil Unions, and would support attempts to increase rights for gay couples in such unions, however the term marriage has no real purpose for gays. If marriage was a natural right then I would reconsider my view, however there is no reason to believe so. (Note- I know that the Supreme court determined marriage to be such a right but they were dead wrong, and you can quote me on that.) If a couple has a wedding, registers with California as a domestic partnership, they have almost all of the same rights that a married couple has. If the left were to push for an increase in those rights, I would not provide resistance.

Its rather funny how I spend all this time bashing moderates, and then claim to be one near the end. C'est la vie!

Once again another post that won't make me very many friends but it is worth considering.

Professional wrestler turned Governor of Nebraska Jesse Ventura once stated that

"you have the far left at 15 percent, you have the far right at 15 percent, and there's 70 percent of us in the center."

While I cannot testify as to whether or not Jesse Ventura was a moderate, ( The only thing I know for sure, is that he was moderately insane) there is some credence to this statement. Being a moderate, or as some call it an independent, is in. What's more fashionable then to say "I am fed up with the way that government has been run as of this point by both parties and consider myself a moderate?"

The one thing that you hear most moderates complain from is that they are not represented in the media. That statement is more or less correct. You have your Olbermans and your Moores on the far left and your Hannitys and your Becks on the far right. The problem, as moderates see it, is that there is no representation for this huge middle. Moderates assume that with no alternative left, those who are right leaning centrists are forced towards Fox and those with even the slightest liberal tendency are forced to Msnbc.

This prognosis, while it makes every moderate as happy as a clam, fails to take into account one of the key problem with moderates in America. The problem is, on balance, moderates don't care. This is a question worth asking yourself if you consider yourself a moderate. Do you care about politics? Every government teacher I ever had talked about the true silent majority of centrism and yet fail to take into account this key point. You want proof? Ask any self-proclaimed moderate whether they voted in the midterm election. Chances are they will say no. The phrase "party faithful" wasn't created out of thin air, they are the group that volunteers, votes, and donates. Not to say that there are civic minded moderates, in fact a friend of mine is exactly that. These people however are the true minority of the silent majority. Why do politicians hold rallies? Why do they go on talk shows that the middle don't watch? Its because in reality while Americans are on a bell curve politically, the graph is bimodal when it comes to civic activity.

Side note:

Some people consider me to be righter than anyone when it comes to politics. While I am fiscally conservative near the point of economic anarchy, I consider myself a social moderate. Obviously I do not set my point of reference for moderacy to be the Bay Area, so all you nay-sayers out there take a minute and consider the following.

Liberals want to maintain abortion rights to all women on the federal level. Conservatives wish to illegalize abortion at the federal level. My belief is that abortion should be handled at the level of the state with the approval of the citizenry. The reason I am not farther left is because I believe abortion is unjustified killing. The reason I am not farther right is because I believe that states have the right to legislate murder, especially since murder is typically handled by the state anyways.

:Liberals want to grant the right of marriage to every gay couple. Conservatives want an amendment to the US constitution legislating marriage to be between a man and a woman. I on the other hand subscribe to the belief that this too should be decided on the state level with consent from the governed. Mind you I am for civil Unions, and would support attempts to increase rights for gay couples in such unions, however the term marriage has no real purpose for gays. If marriage was a natural right then I would reconsider my view, however there is no reason to believe so. (Note- I know that the Supreme court determined marriage to be such a right but they were dead wrong, and you can quote me on that.) If a couple has a wedding, registers with California as a domestic partnership, they have almost all of the same rights that a married couple has. If the left were to push for an increase in those rights, I would not provide resistance.

Its rather funny how I spend all this time bashing moderates, and then claim to be one near the end. C'est la vie!

Friday, December 4, 2009

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

What a bigoted statement! That sounds like a radical evangelical who knows nothing about the constitution. Well, the reality couldn't be farther from the truth. The speaker of this quote is none other than one of the fathers of this nation: John Adams. What would lead such an enlightened revolutionary to make such an anti-secular statement.

I am going to make a rather controversial argument. I contend that without religion the very basis of our nation would be irrelevant. For the purpose of argument let me assume an atheist paradigm*. Lets say for a minute that this world came to be due to statistical chance, and God did not exist. Can the United States exist? Can limited government exist in any form?

Let's play a game.

An atheist has to decide whether human beings are inherently evil, or inherently good. If humans were inherently good, then how could one explain the existence of evil? One could of course take the view that Rousseau held and assume that man made institutions directly lead to evil. Then you come across a bigger problem. If man made institutions lead to evil, then who created these institutions? These institutions obviously do not predate man so evil had to exist before then.

What most atheists end up conceding is that humans are inherently evil or at the very least selfish. If you find yourself in this group, you are in company with many of the prominent atheists of today's time such as Dawkins and Hawking. The problems arise later when you consider what this nation was founded on. Here is a quote you should be pretty familiar with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

The Declaration of Independence

This country was founded on the very notion that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The key question that Atheists tend to ignore is, "Who endowed us with these rights?" An Atheist cannot concede the existence of a creator so must look elsewhere to justify the existence of these rights. The original writer of these words was John Locke who wrote of life liberty and property as unalienable rights. According to Locke, the reason these rights should be protected by governments is because they were given by God. So let's explore how atheists rationalize human rights.

Utilitarianism

One effort by atheists to justify humanitarianism is Utilitarianism. The principle of Utilitarianism states that given two decisions, one should take the decision that better benefits society in general. By such a principle human rights such as life liberty and property would be protected since it benefits the community as a whole. They would also cease to be protected if it does not benefit the community as a whole. Under this framework, speech would be protected but hate speech would not as maximum benefit would be attained by suppressing offensive speech.While this may seem like the perfect paradigm of atheist humanitarianism, it is inherently flawed in several regards.

Flaws of Atheist Utilitarianism

Why would an atheist value every person's happiness equally? Who is to say that me killing someone else will not increase my happiness at a greater magnitude then the decrease to the happiness of the other person. And since there is no after-life in the atheist paradigm, then who is to say that I am not doing him a favor if he is leading a miserable life? If someone ceases to exist, does there happiness go to zero?

If you could save the lives of five people by killing one person, would you do it. The atheist utilitarian by definition believes that we should kill that one person to save five people. However such situations exists in this world today. I guarantee you there are 5 people who need an organ transplant to survive. If you kill one healthy person, you would have 2 kidneys, a liver, 10 pints of blood, a heart and more. By its very principles, utilitarianism justifies organ harvesting.

Utilitarianism assumes a non-existent perfect knowledge. In other words, in order to make the best decision, one must know the consequences of your actions and the consequences of any actions resulting directly from your action. To put it simply, if you were the dean of admissions at the Vienna academy of the Arts and an incompetent student applied to your school, the utilitarian decision would be to reject the student and make room for students with more potential. The result would be that the rejected students would find work more in line with their skills. The only problem of course would be if a student by the name of Adolf Hitler applied to your school with a less the beautiful portfolio. (Yes I broke Godwin's law, deal with it) By the standard of utilitarianism, you would have committed an atrocity since your actions lead to the slaughtering of millions of humans. You should be tried at Nuremberg for such vile actions! Obviously no human has perfect knowledge, and as such utilitarianism is inapplicable.

NihilismThe only paradigm possible for an atheist is Nihilism. Nihilism is the assumption that there is no purpose in life. Since Utilitarianism is impractical and humans are inherently evil, then only one conclusion could be made, government should control the people. People are selfish and have no reason to do what is best for society so the only logical decision would be to suppress the human will.

To conclude, if you are an atheist, you should go to Norway... Ok... probably not, but you should reconsider your views on virtually everything and probably shouldn't be a libertarian and come to the conclusion that our constitution was not made for you.

*Paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

What a bigoted statement! That sounds like a radical evangelical who knows nothing about the constitution. Well, the reality couldn't be farther from the truth. The speaker of this quote is none other than one of the fathers of this nation: John Adams. What would lead such an enlightened revolutionary to make such an anti-secular statement.

I am going to make a rather controversial argument. I contend that without religion the very basis of our nation would be irrelevant. For the purpose of argument let me assume an atheist paradigm*. Lets say for a minute that this world came to be due to statistical chance, and God did not exist. Can the United States exist? Can limited government exist in any form?

Let's play a game.

An atheist has to decide whether human beings are inherently evil, or inherently good. If humans were inherently good, then how could one explain the existence of evil? One could of course take the view that Rousseau held and assume that man made institutions directly lead to evil. Then you come across a bigger problem. If man made institutions lead to evil, then who created these institutions? These institutions obviously do not predate man so evil had to exist before then.

What most atheists end up conceding is that humans are inherently evil or at the very least selfish. If you find yourself in this group, you are in company with many of the prominent atheists of today's time such as Dawkins and Hawking. The problems arise later when you consider what this nation was founded on. Here is a quote you should be pretty familiar with:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

The Declaration of Independence

This country was founded on the very notion that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. The key question that Atheists tend to ignore is, "Who endowed us with these rights?" An Atheist cannot concede the existence of a creator so must look elsewhere to justify the existence of these rights. The original writer of these words was John Locke who wrote of life liberty and property as unalienable rights. According to Locke, the reason these rights should be protected by governments is because they were given by God. So let's explore how atheists rationalize human rights.

Utilitarianism

One effort by atheists to justify humanitarianism is Utilitarianism. The principle of Utilitarianism states that given two decisions, one should take the decision that better benefits society in general. By such a principle human rights such as life liberty and property would be protected since it benefits the community as a whole. They would also cease to be protected if it does not benefit the community as a whole. Under this framework, speech would be protected but hate speech would not as maximum benefit would be attained by suppressing offensive speech.While this may seem like the perfect paradigm of atheist humanitarianism, it is inherently flawed in several regards.

Flaws of Atheist Utilitarianism

Why would an atheist value every person's happiness equally? Who is to say that me killing someone else will not increase my happiness at a greater magnitude then the decrease to the happiness of the other person. And since there is no after-life in the atheist paradigm, then who is to say that I am not doing him a favor if he is leading a miserable life? If someone ceases to exist, does there happiness go to zero?

If you could save the lives of five people by killing one person, would you do it. The atheist utilitarian by definition believes that we should kill that one person to save five people. However such situations exists in this world today. I guarantee you there are 5 people who need an organ transplant to survive. If you kill one healthy person, you would have 2 kidneys, a liver, 10 pints of blood, a heart and more. By its very principles, utilitarianism justifies organ harvesting.

Utilitarianism assumes a non-existent perfect knowledge. In other words, in order to make the best decision, one must know the consequences of your actions and the consequences of any actions resulting directly from your action. To put it simply, if you were the dean of admissions at the Vienna academy of the Arts and an incompetent student applied to your school, the utilitarian decision would be to reject the student and make room for students with more potential. The result would be that the rejected students would find work more in line with their skills. The only problem of course would be if a student by the name of Adolf Hitler applied to your school with a less the beautiful portfolio. (Yes I broke Godwin's law, deal with it) By the standard of utilitarianism, you would have committed an atrocity since your actions lead to the slaughtering of millions of humans. You should be tried at Nuremberg for such vile actions! Obviously no human has perfect knowledge, and as such utilitarianism is inapplicable.

Nihilism
The only paradigm possible for an atheist is Nihilism. Nihilism is the assumption that there is no purpose in life. Since Utilitarianism is impractical and humans are inherently evil, then only one conclusion could be made, government should control the people. People are selfish and have no reason to do what is best for society so the only logical decision would be to suppress the human will.

To conclude, if you are an atheist, you should go to Norway... Ok... probably not, but you should reconsider your views on virtually everything and probably shouldn't be a libertarian and come to the conclusion that our constitution was not made for you.

*Paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality